Iranamok

May 5, 2001

https://www.smartertimes.com/411/iranamok

The international section of today's New York Times carries a dispatch about political developments in Iran. The article reports, "Iran's revolution has evolved into an extended, sometimes bloody tug of war between those who would have it remain much as it was in its early days and those in Mr. Khatami's camp who favor some evolution. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, has supported the conservatives, who also control the security agencies, the courts, the police, the army, state-run television and important oversight committees."

Saying that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei "has supported the conservatives" is like saying the king has supported the monarchists. It is, in other words, a confusing, circular and obvious way to describe the situation; more accurately, Mr. Khamenei is a conservative (not in the American sense) and the conservative cause in Iran is the effort to maintain his absolute authority.

And yes, something can be confusing and obvious at the same time.

Revolting on the U.N.: The lead editorial in today's New York Times, "Revolt at the U.N.," is a perfect example of the Times's blame-America-first attitudes. The U.N. votes America off the Human Rights Commission and leaves Sudan and Libya on it, and the response of the Times is that it is the fault of the Bush administration and of "American behavior." This is confusing the effect with the cause. The Times would have its readers believe that the U.N. often acts like a silly anti-American gathering of dictatorships because America treats the U.N. with disdain; in fact, America treats the U.N. with disdain because the U.N. often acts like a silly anti-American gathering of dictatorships.

Note: Smartertimes.com is in Massachusetts today and is operating off the New England Final edition of the New York Times.

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free smartertimes.com mailing list